Joseph Lieberman on War & Peace

Democratic Jr Senator (CT), ran for V.P. with Gore, ran for president 2004

Withdrawing by July 2007 is retreat & a recipe for disaster

Q: How would failure in Iraq affect US policy?

LIEBERMAN: I have said repeatedly that the Administration has made mistakes in the execution of this war, and I have constantly made suggestions on things to do to help us succeed there-because the costs
of failure are enormous. Last month, I offered a 10-point plan for success in Iraq. The top item was a change in the Secretary of Defense - we need new leadership there. Second I offered specific ways for us to better train the Iraqi security forces to
take over their own defense so we can bring our troops home. I'm not prepared to give up on Iraq and I'm not prepared to fail. Ned Lamont has embraced a proposal for withdrawal by July 2007. To me, that's not a plan for success, that's retreat and a
recipe for disaster, and it will deeply hurt the American people.

Wants two-state solution in Middle East without terrorism

Q: How much are you willing to do to win the trust of the Palestinian people?

LIEBERMAN: The only solution is a two-state solution; peaceful, free Israel next to peaceful, independent Palestine. And the first step must be an end to terrorism.
Would I negotiate with terrorist groups? Not while they're terrorists. But, I believe that people are capable of change.

SHARPTON: Would you meet with the head of the Palestinian Authority?

LIEBERMAN: I did not meet with Arafat.
Clinton gave him an offer of Palestinian statehood, along with former Prime Minister Barak, that came that close to being enacted, but he turned against it. I would not hesitate to have the US mediate between Israelis and any Palestinian
leader who really had declared war against terrorism. Unfortunately, Arafat has not done that. As long as he's there, there's not going to be a real chance for peace.

Leadership means consistency on war views

Q: Please respond to the variety of opinions expressed by your rivals on the Iraq war.

LIEBERMAN: This is a test of leadership. I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they support the war but oppose funding. I've been over Clark's record.
He took six positions on whether going to war was right.

EDWARDS: Leadership is standing up for what you believe in. I believe Saddam was a threat; I voted for the congressional resolution. Then the president says, "I want $87 billion."
I am not willing to give a blank check.

KERRY: I have the experience of being on the front lines when the policy has gone wrong. Our troops are in greater danger because this president's been unwilling to share the burden.

CLARK: I want to make it clear that I would not have voted on $87 billion. The best welfare for the troops is a winning strategy. We ought to call on our commander in chief to produce it. He ought to produce it before he gets one additional penny.

Failure is not an option in War on Terror

Q: Vietnam comparisons are now creeping up in Iraq. Is there a point that you feel it's fair for the US to cut bait and bring the troops home?

LIEBERMAN: What President Bush gave the American people on Sunday night was a price tag, not a plan.
And we in Congress must demand a plan. The president, when he took us to war, which I supported, did not have a plan for what to do the day Saddam Hussein fell. We have a right to demand a plan today, how to get international peacekeepers in,
how to get our allies in to help in the rebuilding of Iraq. I would be prepared as president to send American troops in there to protect the 140,000 who are there today, because international peacekeepers may not be there for months to come.
Bottom line, to answer your question -- this is a battle in the war on terrorism. Failure and defeat is not an option. We can win it if we work together.

Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate
Sep 9, 2003

Pushing Israel out of West Bank is taking sides

Q: You criticized Dr. Dean for just saying that the US shouldn't take sides. What's wrong with a new approach, if we are to be, as Dean suggested, impartial and able to act as a force for negotiation and peace?

LIEBERMAN: All of us have quite correctly
criticized Bush for breaking our most critical alliances. That is exactly what Howard Dean's comments over the last week about the Middle East have done. We have had a unique relationship with Israel. Based on values of democracy, and based on mutual
military strategic interests. We do not gain strength as a negotiator if we compromise our support of Israel. Dean has said he wouldn't take sides, but then he has said Israel ought to get out of the West Bank.

DEAN: My position on Israel is exactly
the same as Bill Clinton's. I want to be an honest broker. We desperately need peace in the Middle East. It doesn't help to demagogue this issue.

LIEBERMAN: Dean's statements break a 50-year record of supporting our relationship with Israel.

Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate
Sep 9, 2003

Be tough, but no preventive war

Don't mistake my opposition to this war because of its preventive nature for a lack of toughness. The commander in chief has to be tough. This president is not executing the war on homeland security the way he should be. 98% of the containers
that come into this country are uninspected. The president promised billions of dollars to states and local government which have not been delivered. We can be a lot tougher than this president is being on homeland security, and we will be.

Source: Democratic Debate in Columbia SC
May 3, 2003

Iran: Enforce non-proliferation on Russia & others

[We should] use whatever authority we have to deter and prevent Iran from developing the capacity to strike us and our allies. That is the other side of the American effort to protect ourselves from the serious threat to our security from the
proliferation of ballistic missile capacity and weapons of mass destruction.

The kinds of weapons that are being developed would allow Iran to threaten friendly Arab states, making it harder for them to cooperate with the US. They would raise the
risks to US military forces in the region, and would threaten the free flow of oil in this critical region, which could create crises in places far from the Persian Gulf.

We must act to try to prevent this from happening. [This bill] requires reports
on the transfer of certain goods, services, or technologies to Iran. This applies to any entities anywhere in the world, including Russia. It authorizes the President to impose measures against these entities but does not mandate him to do so.

Source: Senate statement, “Iran Nonproliferation Act”
Feb 22, 2000

Supported NATO expansion; arms to Israel & Saudis

Lieberman was one of the leaders in the fight for the Gulf war resolution in January 1991. Presciently, he called for “final victory” over Saddam Hussein. He is a strong supporter of Israel but favored F-15 sales to Saudi Arabia in 1992; in spring 1998
he spoke against an American ultimatum to Israel. He favored US ground troops in Bosnia. He backed NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. In 1998 he successfully led a fight for sanctions to stop Russia from exporting missile technology to Iran.

Joseph Lieberman on Iraq

Overthrowing Saddam was right, and we can't abandon Iraq now

Q: The reason we are here tonight is because of the war. You're aware that you've taken an unpopular stand, and you have been asking Democrats all along, from your first ad on, please overlook this, look at my past accomplishments.
But how can you ask Democrats to overlook or look past what they consider to be the central issue of the race?

A: My position on Iraq has been clear. And I believe it was the right thing for us to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
I have been critical of the things that the administration did after that. But the fact is, we're there now. And we have a choice. And that choice is between helping the Iraqis achieve a free and independent Iraq or abandoning them and letting
the terrorists take over. The latter choice is one we cannot make. And I have leveled with people about it and asked them to respect me for having the guts to take an unpopular political position.

Getting out too soon will be a disaster for Iraq and for us

LIEBERMAN [to Lamont]: This piece of paper shows on one day in March you support redeployment of troops. Then you said you're not willing to set a timetable for withdrawal. Then you said I think it's time for the troops to start heading home. Do you
support a specific deadline for getting out of Iraq?

LAMONT: Absolutely. Like Chris Dodd, like the heart of the Democratic Party, I supported both of those amendments [setting a deadline for withdrawal]. It's time for us to change course. Time for us
to start getting our frontline troops out of harm's way, within the next six months, and we get our troops out of Iraq over the course of the next year. That fundamentally is a change of direction. You have an open-ended stay-the-course strategy.

LIEBERMAN: Absolutely untrue. I have said the sooner we get out of Iraq, the better. But if we get out too soon, it will be a disaster for the Iraqis and for us. If you tell your enemy when you're going to leave, they'll wait and create disaster.

Saddam's overthrow caused Libya & Iran to capitulate

Q: Do you think that Libya would have given up its WMD if the US had not invaded Iraq?

A: I seriously doubt whether Libya would have given up its weapons of mass destruction if we had not overthrown Saddam Hussein, and if the Iranians would have
allowed international inspectors come in and looked at their nuclear weapons sites if we had not done that. I've worked to keep our military strong and to know that in a dangerous world, sometimes you have to use that power against dangerous people.

Source: Democratic 2004 primary Debate in Greenville SC
Jan 29, 2004

We made the right decision to send soldiers to Iraq

DEAN: We have lost 500 soldiers and 2,200 wounded in Iraq. Those soldiers were sent there by the vote of Senator Lieberman and Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards. I would have voted against that resolution.

LIEBERMAN: We made the right decision.
I didn't need George Bush to convince me that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US. John McCain and I wrote the law that made it national policy to change the regime in Baghdad.
This man was a homicidal maniac, killed hundreds of thousands of people, did have weapons of mass destruction in the '90s, used them against the Kurdish Iraqis and the Iranians,
admitted to the UN he had enough chemical and biological to kill millions of people, supported terrorism, tried to assassinate former President Bush. I repeat: We are safer with Saddam Hussein in prison than in power.

Iraq victory opens door to Israeli-Palestinian peace

Q: What's the correct road map now for Israel and the Palestinians?

LIEBERMAN: The overthrow and then capture of Saddam Hussein has made America safer and made the world safer. It has not ended all of our problems or all the threats to our security,
but a president has to deal with more than one threat at a time. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict directly related. We have to stay the course in Iraq now and continue to build a stable, modernizing, democratizing country there. That will show the Arab
world what happens as a result of American intervention, that you live better, freer lives, and will send a message to terrorists that we mean business.

Between the Israelis and the Palestinians, there is only one good solution, it is a two-state
solution. As president, I would devote time, commit my secretary of state to it, appoint a special ambassador to be there to work with both sides to move along the path to peace. The doors are open now, in part because of our victory in Iraq.

US and world are safer with homicidal maniac Saddam gone

LIEBERMAN: The overthrow and then capture of Saddam Hussein has made America safer and made the world safer.

DEAN: I beg to differ. Saddam is a dreadful person and I'm delighted to see him behind bars. But since Saddam Hussein has been caught, we've
lost 23 additional troops; we now have, for the first time, American fighter jets escorting commercial airliners through American airspace. Saddam Hussein has been a distraction [from fighting Al Qaeda].

LIEBERMAN: We had good faith differences on the
war against Saddam. But I don't know how anybody could say that we're not safer with a homicidal maniac, a brutal dictator, an enemy of the US, a supporter of terrorism, a murderer of hundreds of thousands of his own people in prison instead of in power.
To say that we haven't obliterated all terrorism with Saddam in prison is a little bit like saying somehow that we weren't safer after WWII after we defeated Hitler because Stalin and the communists were still in power.

Stabilize Iraq before pulling out the troops

Q: Does anyone have a time frame for when the US troops can be pulled out?

A: We've learned from history, you cannot set a time line in this kind of situation. You've got to set a goal line.
Because if you set a time line by which you're going to exit, your enemy will lay back and then strike when you leave. The goal is to stabilize Iraq. When that happens, we can leave.

$87B for Iraq was unpopular, but that's leadership

Q: In our poll, 64% opposed Pres. Bush's request for $87 billion for Iraq & Afghanistan. The opposition was much higher, 85%, among Democrats. Is your support for the Iraq war costing you support among Democratic primary voters?

A: To me leadership is
about doing what you believe is right for the country whether it is politically popular or not. That is the way I felt about my vote in support of the $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a lot of money. We could use a lot of it here at home, but
we had a choice to make. I didn't duck it and I didn't play politics around it. I did what I thought was right to support the 135,000 American soldiers that are there. To finish the job of helping the Iraqi people to build a new country. I hope people
who don't agree with me on this particular vote will decide that they want someone as their president who does what he believes is right, particularly when it is controversial. That is what I mean when I say I will lead America with integrity.

$87B to never leave American troops without support

Q: Will you vote yes or no on the president's request for $87 billion to continue the effort in Iraq?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I'm going to vote for whatever it takes to protect our troops. But you can't say that you want to protect the troops unless you're
willing to send more American troops to protect the ones that are there.

Q: So if the president says, "I need $87 billion to protect the troops," you're ready to say yes to that?

LIEBERMAN: The American people have a right to expect that their
president will make tough judgments, and then have the courage to stick with them. I know it's more popular to say you don't want to send more troops. Of course I want international troops in there. But we may have to wait six months until they get there
and before then, we may have to send troops to protect the 140,000 Americans who are there now. I'm never, as president, going to leave American troops in harm's way without giving them the support and protection they need.

Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate
Sep 9, 2003

Not an inch of difference from Bush on Iraq

Q: You said in the past that there is not an inch of difference between President Bush and yourself in the war against Iraq. Still?

LIEBERMAN: That statement was made as we were about to go to war. It expressed the best traditions and values of the US,
which is when American men and women in uniform go into battle, there's not an inch of space between any of us on that question.

Look, long before George Bush became president, I reached a conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US and to
the world, and particularly to his own people who he was brutally suppressing. I believe that the war against Saddam was right, and that the world is safer with him gone. I said last fall and then again a month before the war, "Mr. President, here's
what you have to do to get ready to secure post-Saddam Iraq." No planning was done by this administration. I believe it's because this administration divided within itself, and the president as commander in chief has not brought it together.

Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico
Sep 4, 2003

Purpose of war is to let Iraqis control Iraq

As president, I would have gone to NATO and the UN and asked them to join us in securing and rebuilding Iraq. I would have brought the Iraqis in, to control of the country. I didn't support the war against Saddam Hussein so we could control Iraq.
Quite the contrary. I supported it so we could get rid of Saddam and let the Iraqis control Iraq. So I would negotiate whatever resolution at the UN will draw our allies with us into keeping the peace and rebuilding the country.

Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico
Sep 4, 2003

Send more US troops to Iraq, with UN force

Q: You would send more troops to Iraq?

LIEBERMAN: I would send more troops, because the troops that are there need that protection. And we need some of the specialized services that will help the Iraqis gain control of their country,
and mean that sooner American troops could come home. Obviously, Americans have to control an international force. But a year ago I called for an international force.

Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico
Sep 4, 2003

Iraq was a heroic struggle against enemies of civilization

You know what I would say to the parents of Americans who are serving in Iraq? Your sons and daughters are serving in a heroic and historic cause. They have thrown over Saddam Hussein, liberated a people
and protected America and the rest of the world from a dangerous dictator. They are now involved in a critical battle in the war on terrorism. These are enemies of civilization, and if we don't get together and defeat them now, shame on us.

Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico
Sep 4, 2003

Saddam was a threat; we did the right thing by invading

Q: Gov. Dean said just today that Saddam was really not much of a threat to the US and had never been one. By getting rid of Saddam, we've made things more dangerous for America. Do you agree?

LIEBERMAN: Oh, I absolutely disagree.
Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US and, most particularly, to his neighbors. Remember, this was a man who said he wanted to rule the Arab world, and he invaded two of his neighbors in pursuit of that goal, using chemical weapons against them. We have
evidence also over the last several years that he was cooperating with terrorists and supporting them.

We did the right thing, and we gave him 12 years and tried everything short of war to get him to keep the promises he made to disarm at the end of
the Gulf War. We did the right thing in fighting this fight, and the American people will be safer as a result of it. And incidentally, no Democrat will be elected president in 2004 who is not strong on defense, and this war was a test of that strength.

Joseph Lieberman on Voting Record

Yes on $87B for Iraq-we must support troops

Q: [Bush has asked for] $87 billion for the ongoing war on terrorism. Your vote, yes or no, and if yes, how do you pay for $87 billion?

LIEBERMAN: [Repealing the top tax cuts] is certainly my first choice as to how we should finance this $87 billion.
The fact is that the only Americans sacrificing today for our policy in Iraq are the 140,000 Americans who are there in uniform for us. If George Bush had a better, more multilateral foreign policy, we wouldn't have to finance this alone.

But we have no choice but to finance this program for two reasons. We have those 140,000 American troops there. We need to protect them. We need to protect them and bring them home safe to their families. Secondly, we are involved in a great battle in
the war on terrorism. Those terrorists have poured in there. They're attacking Americans. They're attacking the institutions of civilization: the United Nations, Jordanian embassy, Muslim mosques. We cannot afford to lose this fight.

Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months.

Vote to transition the missions of US Forces in Iraq to a more limited set of missions as specified by the President on September 13, 2007: S.AMDT.3875 amends S.AMDT.3874 and underlying bill H.R.2764:

The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the US Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the [new limited mission].

Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

No funds under any provision of law may be expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the US Armed Forces after 9 months.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LEVIN: "The amendment requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions:"

Security for US Government personnel and infrastructure

Training Iraqi security forces

Equipment to US service men and women to ensure their safety

Targeted operations against members of al-Qaida.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. McCAIN: "This year, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military has made significant gains under the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since [2003]. Improvised explosive device blasts now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004.

"Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. We are succeeding under the new strategy.

"Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake."

Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.

Vote on a "Sense of the Senate" amendment, S.Amdt. 3017, to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act), that finds:

that it is a vital US national interest to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force;

that it should be US policy to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of Iran;

to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy;

that the US should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LIEBERMAN: Some of our colleagues thought the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran [so we removed some text].
That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BIDEN. I will oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for one simple reason: this administration cannot be trusted. I am very concerned about the evidence that suggests that Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities inside Iraq. Arguably, if we had a different President who abided by the meaning and intent of laws we pass, I might support this amendment. I fear, however, that this President might use the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity as a pretext to use force against Iran as he sees fit. [The same was done with the Senate resolution on Iraq in 2002]. Given this President's actions and misuse of authority, I cannot support the amendment.

Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.

Begins the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this joint resolution with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all US combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number essential for protecting US and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. Such redeployment shall be implemented as part of a diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community in order to bring stability to Iraq.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.

Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.

Voting YEA on this amendment would establish a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Voting NAY would keep the current situation without a timetable. The amendment states:

The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.

The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

Opponents of the Resolution say:

This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.

The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the
American people at home.

Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.

Supporters of the Resolution say:

Congress talks almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11.

One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because all the terrorists will come into Iraq, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-motel theory. The fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 60 to 80 countries. Yet our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation.

In terms of differences from other Iraq amendments: This is binding, not just a sense of the Senate.

Secondly, we have a date; other amendments are open-ended.

Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect our security interests.

Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.

To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism. Voting YES would: create Senate special committee to investigate war contracts, taking into consideration: bidding, methods of contracting, subcontracting, oversight procedures, allegations of wasteful practices, accountability and lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Vote to pass a bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Fiscal 2004. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq. This includes:

$5.1 billion for security

$5.2 billion for reconstruction costs

$65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance

$1.3 billion for veterans medical care

$10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90% of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries.

Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.

H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the president would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress.

Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo.

Majority Leader Trent Lott motioned to kill the resolution that would have authorized the president to "use all necessary forces and other means," in cooperation with U.S. allies to accomplish objectives in Yugoslavia.
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)78; N)22

Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism.

Lieberman co-sponsored the Resolution on bigotry against Sikh Americans:

Title: Condemning bigotry and violence against Sikh Americans in the wake of terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Summary: Declares that, in the quest to identify, locate, and bring to justice the perpetrators and sponsors of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Sikh-Americans, should be protected.

Condemns bigotry and acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans, including Sikh-Americans.

Calls upon local and Federal law enforcement authorities to: (1) work to prevent hate crimes against all Americans; and (2) prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who commit hate crimes.

Support the completion of the US mission in Iraq.

Lieberman co-sponsored supporting the completion of the US mission in Iraq

A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq and all United States personnel under his command should receive from Congress the full support necessary to carry out the United States mission in Iraq. Expresses the sense of the Senate that:

Congress should ensure that General David Petraeus have the necessary resources to carry out their mission in Iraq; and

the government of Iraq must make visible progress toward meeting the political, economic, and military benchmarks enumerated in this Resolution.